TN EDITORIAL: Partisanship trumps hope for cost cuts

Published: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Monday, December 7, 2009 at 6:20 p.m.

The health care reform bill has a long way to go before it passes, if it does pass. But the more we observe the debate, the more we hope Senate would hurry up and vote it up or down. The more it's subject to cynical partisan maneuvering, the worse it gets.

Republicans, we're sure, would love to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility that they lost through eight years of self-dealing pork barrel spending, expanded programs at home and wars abroad paid for by kiting checks.

They are doing nothing to help their cause the way they're trying to doctor the health care reform bill.

One would think that curbs on unnecessary testing would have strong support from the GOP. To the contrary, Republican senators are now standing up for a level of testing that will likely raise costs. One gets the suspicion that their motives are not entirely borne of compassion for cancer patients.

Republicans saw an opening when a federal advisory committee recommended recently that younger women should first consult with their doctors before routinely getting mammograms.

The task force study, which predated the health care reform debate, found that many younger women could be harmed by surgery, radiation or chemotherapy to remove tumors spotted by mammography that would never have killed them or perhaps even become noticeable.

The study did damage the cause of promoting regular mammograms by making it appear that they might not be necessary. But the Republicans' cynical use of the findings, and Democrats' cowed response, only made matters worse.

Republicans seized on the mammogram study as evidence that the Democratic health care bill would ration medical services like testing.

The health care reform bill actually encourages people to take advantage of prevention programs that can protect their health by ensuring coverage of prevention services ranked high in effectiveness.

Based on the ranking of a task force, mammograms for women in their 40s got a grade of C, instead of A or B. They would not have to be provided free under the bill but still could have been if insurers or government insurance chose to. Sounds like a reasonable middle ground.

But there is no room for nuance in the scare politics of health care, so the Senate stampeded to pass an amendment that directed the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidelines on what preventive services private insurance plans should provide free to women. The amendment, by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., didn't bother to wait for a dispassionate look at the question. It declared that mammograms were among the services that would be offered free, for women of any age.

Just for good measure, the Senate then passed an amendment that ordered the government to ignore the original task force recommendations on mammograms.

This small episode that will drive up costs does not inspire confidence about the health care reform bill's potential for saving money, nor the Republican Party's commitment to seeing that it does.

<p>The health care reform bill has a long way to go before it passes, if it does pass. But the more we observe the debate, the more we hope Senate would hurry up and vote it up or down. The more it's subject to cynical partisan maneuvering, the worse it gets.</p><p>Republicans, we're sure, would love to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility that they lost through eight years of self-dealing pork barrel spending, expanded programs at home and wars abroad paid for by kiting checks.</p><p>They are doing nothing to help their cause the way they're trying to doctor the health care reform bill.</p><p>One would think that curbs on unnecessary testing would have strong support from the GOP. To the contrary, Republican senators are now standing up for a level of testing that will likely raise costs. One gets the suspicion that their motives are not entirely borne of compassion for cancer patients.</p><p>Republicans saw an opening when a federal advisory committee recommended recently that younger women should first consult with their doctors before routinely getting mammograms.</p><p>The task force study, which predated the health care reform debate, found that many younger women could be harmed by surgery, radiation or chemotherapy to remove tumors spotted by mammography that would never have killed them or perhaps even become noticeable.</p><p>The study did damage the cause of promoting regular mammograms by making it appear that they might not be necessary. But the Republicans' cynical use of the findings, and Democrats' cowed response, only made matters worse.</p><p>Republicans seized on the mammogram study as evidence that the Democratic health care bill would ration medical services like testing.</p><p>The health care reform bill actually encourages people to take advantage of prevention programs that can protect their health by ensuring coverage of prevention services ranked high in effectiveness.</p><p>Based on the ranking of a task force, mammograms for women in their 40s got a grade of C, instead of A or B. They would not have to be provided free under the bill but still could have been if insurers or government insurance chose to. Sounds like a reasonable middle ground.</p><p>But there is no room for nuance in the scare politics of health care, so the Senate stampeded to pass an amendment that directed the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidelines on what preventive services private insurance plans should provide free to women. The amendment, by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., didn't bother to wait for a dispassionate look at the question. It declared that mammograms were among the services that would be offered free, for women of any age.</p><p>Just for good measure, the Senate then passed an amendment that ordered the government to ignore the original task force recommendations on mammograms.</p><p>This small episode that will drive up costs does not inspire confidence about the health care reform bill's potential for saving money, nor the Republican Party's commitment to seeing that it does.</p>